Original source · versioned page text
Rev Fauna Flora Assessment
Attached to the e-mail Further information (Plans, Fauna Flora Ass, Carparking, Road design, traffic mgmt, bushfire, Plans) - MCU18/0009.
FAUNA AND FLORA ASSESSMENT
Carramar Extension
For Callaghan and Toth Engineers
Native Foresters
Natural Resource Management Consultants
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 0407 757 872
Document No: 170510-FF- Revision 2
Date: 26th June 2018
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 50 pages
Page 2
Native Foresters DISCLAIMER The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. This report has been compiled on the basis of existing literature, information, and a targeted survey. Native Foresters does not undertake responsibility arising in any way to any persons in respect of the data, errors, or omissions arising, through misinterpretation of information, negligence or otherwise, however caused. Native Foresters is an independent consulting company undertaking projects in Natural Resource Management. All work conducted as part of this survey was conducted under the DERM Scientific Purposes Permit number WISP 10189211 and DEEDI Animal Ethics Committee number SA 2015/02/501 and SA 2018/01/1150, in accordance with the relevant regulations. STUDY TEAM Simon McVerry (BASc – NRM) - Project Director Vanessa Moscato (BSc) – Fieldwork and reporting Tim O’Reilly – Fieldwork Tony Bright – Fauna consultant Dave Burrows – Flora consultant DOCUMENT CONTROL Project: Carramar Extension Document: Fauna and Flora Assessment Client: Callaghan and Toth Engineers Project Manager: Jane Davissen Document No: Date: Prepared by: Reviewed By: 170510-FF- 10th May 2017 Vanessa Moscato Simon McVerry 170510-FF-Revision 1 8th April 2018 Vanessa Moscato Simon McVerry 170510-FF-Revision 2 26th June 2018 Vanessa Moscato Simon McVerry ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Dr. Edward Meyer and Dr. Tim Howell, who provided expert advice on Swamp Crayfish genetics and breeding ecology and freshwater ecology, including fish. Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 2
Page 3
Native Foresters
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Objectives of the report ..................................................................................... 5
1.2 Site description ................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Legislative requirements ................................................................................... 6
1.4 Proposed works ................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Impacts on fauna habitat ................................................................................... 7
1.5.1 Impacts on Endangered Swamp Crayfish habitat ............................................ 9
2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 11
2.1 Desktop review ............................................................................................... 11
2.2 Field assessment ............................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Flora survey ............................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Fauna survey ........................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Fauna habitat assessment ....................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Survey timing and weather conditions ...................................................... 14
2.2.5 Survey limitations ..................................................................................... 14
3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Desktop review ............................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation Management map ................................................. 15
3.1.2 Regional Ecosystem mapping .................................................................. 15
3.1.3 Essential Habitat designation ................................................................... 15
3.1.4 WildNET search ....................................................................................... 15
3.1.5 EPBC Protected Matters .......................................................................... 15
3.1.6 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map .............................................. 16
3.1.7 Koala legislation ....................................................................................... 16
3.1.8 Koala tracker ............................................................................................ 16
3.2 Flora assessment ............................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Vegetation at Carramar Extension ........................................................... 18
3.2.2 Vegetation in 100 metre buffer ................................................................. 20
3.3 Fauna assessment .......................................................................................... 23
3.4 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality ............................... 26
4.0 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES..................................................................................... 31
4.1 Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)......................................... 31
4.2 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) ................................................................... 31
4.3 Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) ...................................................................... 32
4.4 Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula)...................................................................... 32
4.5 Wallum rocket frog (Litoria freycineti)........................................................... 33
4.6. Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) .............................................. 33
5.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 36
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 38
APPENDIX A: CARRAMAR EXTENSION MODEL........................................................ 40
APPENDIX B: SITE PLAN – CARRAMAR NOOSA EXPANSION ................................. 42
APPENDIX C: Certification of Suitably Qualified Person for Flora Survey ..................... 44
APPENDIX D: JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED
PERSON FOR FAUNA BREEDING PLACE SURVEY .................................................. 45
APPENDIX E: VEGETATION SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................... 46
APPENDIX F: REVISED CONTOUR MAP SHOWING Q100 FLOOD LEVELS ............. 50
Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 3
Page 4
Native Foresters Figures FIGURE 1: Locality map .................................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 2: Carramar Extension survey area ................................................................... 8 FIGURE 3: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map ................................................. 17 FIGURE 4: Scattered trees and parkland at Carramar entrance .................................... 18 FIGURE 5: Melaleuca wetland with sedge and fern understorey ................................... 19 FIGURE 6: Melaleuca woodland with Lomandra understorey........................................ 19 FIGURE 7: Closed sedgeland and dam within 100 metre buffer .................................... 21 FIGURE 8: Vegetation Communities at Carramar Noosa Care ..................................... 22 FIGURE 9: Location of Endangered Swamp Crayfish and Habitat Model ...................... 25 FIGURE 10: Arboreal termite mound used for nesting by kookaburras or kingfishers.... 27 FIGURE 11: Stormwater outlets and drainage lines provide breeding habitat for amphibians .................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 12: Ephemeral ponds providing habitat for Endangered Swamp crayfish ........ 29 FIGURE 13: Piles of dumped garden waste provide refuge and basking sites for reptiles ...................................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 14: Endangered Swamp crayfish found east of Carramar Noosa carpark ....... 33 Tables TABLE 1: Listed species identified by desktop research within 1.1 km of survey area...15 TABLE 2: Results of timed meander survey……..……………………….…………………20 TABLE 3: Fauna identified on site ……………….……………………………….…....…….24 TABLE 4: Rating of habitat features surrounding Cooroy Noosa Road ...……………….28 TABLE 5: Habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species …….......30 Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 4
Page 5
Native Foresters
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Native Foresters was commissioned by Callaghan and Toth Engineers in May 2017 to
conduct a flora and fauna survey and habitat assessment of the vegetation within Lot 2
RP177554, known as Carramar Noosa Care (the Carramar extension). A revision of the
report was requested following a Noosa Council review and request for further information
in February 2018.
This report assesses the fauna and flora which are present and the ecological condition
of the subject site. It documents the results of preliminary and targeted surveys for EVNT-
listed species including Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula), Swamp Crayfish
(Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) and Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). An assessment of the
impact of the proposed development on the habitat and breeding habitat of the
Endangered Swamp Crayfish whose presence is confirmed onsite is provided.
Recommendations relating to mitigating the potential impacts on native fauna species
and their breeding habitats are made where considered relevant to proposed construction
works.
1.1 Objectives of the report
The objectives of the report are as follows:
▪ To assess and describe the existing vegetation on the site, in accordance with the
Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (NC Act 1992).
▪ To determine the presence of any State and/or Commonwealth listed fauna and flora
species.
▪ To provide an ecological assessment of habitat values on site, including breeding
habitat value for native species, with a particular focus on EVNT listed fauna species.
The assessment complies with DEHP/DES reporting requirements for Animal
Breeding Places Assessment and Noosa Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 18 –
Ecological Assessment Guidelines.
▪ To comment on the potential impacts of any proposed works on native flora and fauna,
and their breeding habitat, with a specific focus on the impacts of proposed works on
Endangered Swamp Crayfish habitat.
1.2 Site description
The subject site encompasses the footprint of a proposed extension to the Carramar site
situated at 186 Cooroy Noosa Road, Tewantin on Lot 2 RP177554. The survey area
encompasses an area in the east of the lot that contains a mowed parkland with scattered
shade trees and landscaped garden beds, pagodas, stormwater outlets and footpath as
well as a natural area of Melaleuca woodland and wetland vegetation. This represents a
total area of approximately 8,000m2. Refer to Figure 1 for a Locality map and Figure 2 for
a Survey area map.
Elevation slopes gently to the south and east, falling from approximately 15 metres to 7
metres above sea level (asl.) Ephemeral ponding occurs throughout the central, southern
and eastern section of the survey area following seasonal rainfall.
Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 5
Page 6
Native Foresters
Geology on site is coastal alluvium associated with recent Quaternary alluvial systems
(Land Zone 3). The vegetation is considered non-remnant with some scattered large
Eucalypts and Melaleuca wetland / Gahnia sedgeland areas that provide habitat for the
Endangered Swamp Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus).
The proposed extension lies within an Environmental Protection Area on the Noosa
Council Biodiversity Overlay, although the mapping is partially incorrect as it does not
reflect previous developments for Cartwright South buildings.
The survey area adjoins a remnant palustrine wetland and dam to the east (Lot 270
MCH4647) which drains into a tributary to Wooroi Creek and to the north-east, lies
Lomandra Park. To the west, the site adjoins the Carramar Noosa Care Centre, with
residential lots to the north and Tewantin National Park to the south across the Cooroy
Noosa Road.
Survey area
FIGURE 1: Locality map
1.3 Legislative requirements
To evaluate the habitat values on the site for State and Commonwealth listed flora and
fauna species the following legislation was reviewed:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) –
Commonwealth
• Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA) – State
o Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006
• Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) – State
• Biosecurity Act 2016 – State
Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 6
Page 7
Native Foresters
1.4 Proposed works
The proposed extension to the Carramar Noosa Care facility will involve the following
works:
▪ Clearing of 0.52 hectares for proposed dwellings as per Callaghan and Toth
drawing 1714-22 (Appendix A).
▪ Construction of six new Special Care and Special Needs blocks.
▪ Selective clearing of understorey of 0.23 hectares to achieve a 14.1m bushfire
buffer adjacent to the buildings.
▪ Underground ECOAid detention tanks will assist with stormwater capture.
▪ Some filling will be required to achieve a platform to construct Villas 3 to 6 and
the café/administration building.
▪ Limited excavation as shown on Middap Architecture Pty Ltd - Plan 1717 DA 04A
(Appendix B).
There will be no changes to flow regimes and existing stormwater outlets will be
maintained to the existing watercourse. Water quality and quantity will be managed as per
the Integrated Water Management Plan (Callaghan and Toth Pty Ltd, 2017). A series of
rainwater tanks and biopods will treat sediment and nutrients in stormwater flows to protect
the water quality of the adjacent watercourse.
Weeds will be managed in the retained vegetation areas, bushfire buffer and adjacent
Lomandra Park as per the proposed Rehabilitation Plan (Callaghan and Toth drawings
1714-20 to 1714 -22).
1.5 Impacts on fauna habitat
Direct impacts to existing flora and fauna habitat from the proposed works include:
▪ Loss of habitat, including the loss or disturbance of leaf litter, woody debris,
vegetation, burrows and ephemeral ponds that provide habitat, including breeding
habitat, for native fauna, specifically:
o Loss of 0.52 hectares of vegetation in mapped Environmental Protection Area
(Noosa Council Biodiversity Overlay).
o Understorey modification of approximately 0.23 hectares of vegetation in mapped
Environmental Protection Area.
o Loss of potential Koala habitat including 16 primary Koala food trees.
o Loss, modification and disturbance to 550m2 of modelled potential Swamp Crayfish
habitat, which includes 20m2 of actual/known Swamp Crayfish habitat. Impacts to
Swamp Crayfish habitat are elaborated further in Section 1.5.1.
▪ Potential changes to the profile and hydrology of the site may reduce habitat suitability
for native fauna, including amphibians and aquatic invertebrates.
▪ Potential contamination of Melaleuca wetland with stormwater inputs, that may carry
detergents, disinfectants and other pollutants.
▪ Changes to vegetation structure, microhabitat conditions and connectivity affect
habitat quality and species dispersal.
▪ Compaction of soil and destruction of depressions/burrows used by native fauna in
Bushfire buffer area.
▪ Potential disturbance of habitat through stockpiling of vegetation, soil and materials.
▪ Potential for introduction/dispersal of undesirable weed species and other edge
effects that reduce habitat integrity and ecosystem resilience over the long term.
Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment – Revision 2 7
Page 8
Native Foresters
FIGURE 2: Carramar Extension survey area
Carramar Extension – Fauna & Flora Assessment - Revision 1 8
Page 9
Native Foresters
Potential indirect impacts to existing flora and fauna habitat include:
▪ Prescribed setback zones around the buildings may involve replacement of native species
with mown grass requiring fertiliser and irrigation. Associated nutrient-enriched runoff may
impact the adjoining Melaleuca wetland and closed sedgeland ecosystems.
It is likely that impacts on local fauna populations and their breeding habitat in the retained
vegetation areas to the east of the proposed development will be able to be minimised and /or
avoided through careful consideration of drainage flows and stormwater runoff during construction
and ongoing operation of the proposed facilities. This may include the use of sediment and
stormwater retention basins.
1.5.1 Impacts on Endangered Swamp Crayfish habitat
Because of insufficient knowledge on Swamp Crayfish breeding ecology, for the purposes of this
report, occupied habitat is considered to be breeding habitat for the species.
The field habitat assessment and targeted species surveys have confirmed an actual distribution
of Swamp Crayfish of approximately 300m2 just east of the existing carpark.
A potential habitat model for Swamp Crayfish within Lot 2 RP177554 has been derived based on
analysis of the following landscape features and spatial data layers:
i) presence of canopy cover or understorey vegetation cover;
ii) presence of ephemeral ponding; and
iii) Q100 flood mapping.
The area of potential habitat for Swamp Crayfish on Lot 2 RP177554 is approximately 2,600 m2.
The actual and potential distributions for the species are shown on Figure 8. Proposed works
will result in the following direct and indirect impacts:
▪ Clearing for infrastructure will result in a loss of 50m2 of potential Swamp Crayfish
habitat;
▪ Selective clearing for the bushfire setback will result in understorey modification of
480m2 of potential habitat for the species and loss of approximately 20m2 of actual
habitat. A total of 550m2 of modelled crayfish habitat will potentially be impacted by
clearing an understorey modification;
▪ If heavy machinery is used for bushfire buffer clearing, compaction of burrows and
changes to surface hydrology may occur;
▪ Potential increased contamination of surface water with herbicides (and wetting agents)
used to control vegetation may occur as a result of vegetation management activities.
▪ Potential Increased nutrient and sediment-enriched stormwater runoff associated with the
increased density of housing may occur;
▪ Injury or death to the individuals foraging above ground from machinery and people.
▪ Channelling runoff through a pipe culvert may lead to increased scouring of the benthos
within the area of occupied habitat to the east of the carpark, potentially reducing its habitat
value for Swamp Crayfish.
▪ Changes to vegetation structure, microhabitat conditions and connectivity may affect
fauna movement to areas of potentially suitable habitat.
▪ Changes to water quality and/or site hydrology, increased erosion and sedimentation may
impact future viability of breeding habitat eg: aquatic weeds, pH shifts, dissolved oxygen
levels, etc.
▪ Predation of relocated individuals if appropriate habitat features are disturbed and/or not
replaced.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 9
Page 10
Native Foresters In the absence of detailed, long term studies on Swamp Crayfish in the Noosa Region, the precautionary principle has been applied in determining the extent of potential habitat, resulting in what is likely to be an overestimation. The possibility exists that the species may not be able to reach the western side of the modelled potential habitat or may have been eliminated from the more developed, modified western areas as a result of previous drainage and vegetation clearing works. Whilst the majority of actual Swamp Crayfish habitat lies within the retained vegetation areas, clearing will come to within five metres of the actual or realised distribution. As such, it will be important to clearly demarcate the areas of occupied or actual habitat for the species on site and ensure minimal disturbance to vegetation adjacent to occupied habitat areas. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 10
Page 11
Native Foresters
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Desktop review
A desktop review was undertaken to assist in determining the site’s ecological attributes. The
review consisted of searches of local, state and Commonwealth government planning instruments
and databases, as well as relevant academic literature. Sources of information included:
• Regulated Vegetation Management Map (DNRM, 2017)
• Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map (DEHP, 2017)
• WildNET Database (DEHP, 2017)
• EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (DoE, 2017)
• South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions Habitat
Values Map (DEHP, 2010)
All other relevant information relating to the subject site was reviewed, where available, including
the Middap Architect Plans, Callaghan and Toth documents, Noosa Care Redevelopment
Vegetation Management Plan (Winter and Co, 2010), Noosa Council Biodiversity Overlay, and
Detailed Survey and Contour Plan No 60601 (Murray and Associates, 2017).
2.2 Field assessment
2.2.1 Flora survey
A comprehensive flora survey was conducted on 9th May 2017 to inventory all native and non-
native flora occurring within and around the survey area. The extent of the flora survey is indicated
in Figure 2.
An experienced botanist undertook a systematic botanical analysis over a six hour period which
allowed representative areas of the site to be assessed in order to determine the presence of
Endangered, Vulnerable, and Near threatened (EVNT) flora species. The survey was consistent
with the Flora Survey Guideline – Protected Plants, (NCA 1992). Certification by the suitably
qualified person who led and coordinated the flora survey is provided in Appendix C. The suitably
qualified person has been previously approved by DES for the Nambour Landfill Expansion
survey, April 2017.
Two timed meander surveys were conducted in the vegetation communities present around the
survey area in order to determine the presence of EVNT (Endangered, Vulnerable, Near
threatened) flora species within the site’s 100 metre buffer zone as shown in Figure 2. The
following methodology was used to conduct the timed meander survey:
• The location of the start point of the survey was determined by the botanist in order to
maximise the possibility of locating EVNT species (if such species are present).
• The survey was conducted in a random manner for a period of 30 minutes with the identities
of any EVNT plant species recorded and specimens of any unknown species collected.
• A record of the time was taken every two to five minutes. If the survey was interrupted then
this time was not recorded in the survey results.
• The search was continued until no new EVNT species were recorded for 30 minutes or when
the entire area of habitat type had been surveyed.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 11
Page 12
Native Foresters
• Where multiple habitat types or vegetation communities were present within a clearing impact
area, a timed meander assessment was undertaken within each of these areas.
• Where certain preferred habitat types or vegetation communities may be extensively
represented within a site, multiple meanders per habitat type were undertaken across the
clearing impact area to increase the probability of detecting an EVNT species.
In the event that an EVNT listed plant is identified during the timed meander survey, a more
comprehensive and systematic assessment of species abundance, distribution and habitat
associations is conducted using the Plot or Quadrat Survey Method as described by Neldner et
al. 2008.
An estimate of the statistical power of the flora survey has been made for the site. It is determined
that there is a 95% (power of 0.95) certainty that all EVNT flora species occurring within the survey
area and 100 metre buffer zone for the site have been recorded by the survey.
Vegetation communities described in this report were ground-truthed and mapped using ArcGIS
on the 25th June 2018 following an additional Noosa Council Request for Information.
2.2.2 Fauna survey
Comprehensive diurnal and nocturnal fauna surveys were undertaken between the 9th and 11th
May 2017 by an experienced fauna specialist using the following methods:
• Active search - searching for fauna under logs, rocks, leaf litter and decorticating bark.
• Passive search - identifying species both visually and aurally whenever the opportunity
arises while onsite.
• Tracks and scats – signs of an animal's presence, such as scats and tracks, are
interpreted. This procedure was generally opportunistic and used whenever specimens
were located.
• Dip net – where repeated sweeps with a fine mesh net are used to sample representative
aquatic habitats. All fauna are released unharmed.
• Aural survey and/or call playback - where recorded calls of the listed frog species are
played to determine their presence.
Additional targeted fauna surveys for Swamp Crayfish, Wallum Froglet and Koala were conducted
on the 5th March and 7th April 2018 using a dip net, visual and aural detection/call playback
methods following a Noosa Council Request For Information. These surveys were undertaken in
optimal conditions to maximise the likelihood of detecting the target species. The fauna surveys
were generally consistent with the Wallum Froglet Targeted Species Survey Guidelines (Rowland,
2012) and Noosa Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 18 – Ecological Assessment Guidelines.
2.2.3 Fauna habitat assessment
A fauna habitat assessment and animal breeding places survey was undertaken during the field
investigations. This assessment was based on the habitats present, the listed threatened species
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 12
Page 13
Native Foresters
known to occur or potentially occurring within the locality, and the occurrence of specific breeding
places or breeding habitat for these species. A statement to justify the suitability and qualifications
of the person undertaking the animal breeding place survey is provided in Appendix D.
For the purposes of this report, the definition of “breeding places” follows that provided in s332 of
the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. For species such as Koala and
native frogs, who do not use a habitual breeding place, the term ‘breeding habitat’ is used in lieu
of ‘breeding place’. The fauna habitat assessment is important in determining species that may
be in the area but whose presence was not able to be detected.
Habitat features that were considered significant for assessing the presence of breeding places
and/or habitation value for native fauna, include but are not limited to:
i. Presence of hollow-bearing trees: These may be used by birds, reptiles or arboreal
mammals to incubate or rear offspring;
ii. Presence of bowers, nests, dreys: These structures are commonly used by birds or
mammals to incubate or rear offspring;
iii. Presence of caves, mounds, burrows, ground hollows and/or coarse woody debris: These
structures are commonly used by birds, mammals, reptiles or amphibians to incubate or
rear offspring;
iv. Presence of permanent water, ephemeral ponding, depressions and/or, seasonally
inundated areas: Waterbodies may be used for breeding by aquatic species or
amphibians, or that may provide intermittent breeding habitat for opportunistic species;
v. Presence of large trees: Large trees can be a dominant feature of native vegetation and
are difficult to replace once lost. Their influence for wide-ranging species can extend over
a considerable distance from their location.
vi. Canopy cover: The uppermost stratum of woody vegetation that forms the canopy
functions as habitat for birds and arboreal mammals, provides food and resources, and
determines the degree of light penetration and heat reaching the lower strata and ground
detrital layer.
vii. Weed cover: Weeds can dominate and suppress native plant growth which affects the
diversity of food sources; they can change the fuel or litter characteristics of a site, thereby
altering the fire regime, and also prevent recruitment and succession of native vegetation.
viii. Understorey components: The shrub and herb strata generally contain the greatest plant
species richness and can be a useful indicator of disturbance and changes in condition.
ix. Organic litter, fallen timber and rocks: Litter cover can be indicative of the degree of
disturbance of a site, and can be an important determinant of species recruitment. It will
influence soil microclimates, structure and composition, and provide refugia for
invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and ground dwelling mammals.
x. Recruitment: Recruitment of plant species, particularly woody perennials, within all strata
reflects the site’s long-term viability.
xi. Landscape context: The size of a patch, its connectivity and distance to a core area of
vegetation (i.e. greater than 50 hectares) can affect both its regenerative capacity and
long-term viability. Species–area relationships suggest that large areas support more
species and populations than smaller ones thus retaining greater genetic variability and
providing refuge for species susceptible to disturbances.
For each listed species that was identified in Essential Habitat Mapping or Wildlife Online, a
likelihood of occurrence rating was assigned based on the following:
• Known - species positively recorded by this survey or other survey by qualified
ecologists during past 30 years;
• Likely - based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent database records from
study area or proximity;
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 13
Page 14
Native Foresters
• Possible - suitable habitat present for the species, but no recent database records from
the study area or proximity; and
• Unlikely - based on a lack of suitable habitat and lack of proximate records.
2.2.4 Survey timing and weather conditions
The flora and fauna surveys were conducted under the following conditions (BOM Daily Weather
Observations for Tewantin (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/):
▪ May 2017 (mid-autumn) under cool, overcast and rainy conditions with temperatures ranging
from 16.2 to 23.9 degrees Celsius and relative humidity of 58-99%. Scattered showers over
the survey dates delivered approximately 37 millimetres of rain and there was 4.2 millimetres
of rain recorded during the preceding week.
▪ March 2018 (early autumn) under rainy, overcast conditions with temperatures ranging from
22.7 to 28.6 degrees Celsius and 47.6 millimetres of rain in the preceeding 24 hours.
▪ April 2018 (early autumn) 24 to 27 degrees Celsius with light rain preceeding the survey and
27mm of rain recorded during the preceding week.
▪ June 2018 (mid-winter) under rainy, overcast conditions with temperatures ranging from 5.7
– 18.7 degrees Celsius and 6.4mm of rain in the preceding 24 hours.
The timing of the survey is considered suitable for detecting the target EVNT listed plant,
Pararistolochia praevenosa, which can be identified all year round based on its characteristic leaf
size, shape and hooked petiole as well as its mottled, ridged or furrowed stem.
The timing of the surveys is deemed optimal for detecting Wallum froglet and for identifying
surface activity of Swamp Crayfish, as there was seasonal inundation of the site following periods
of intense rainfall during both survey periods.
2.2.5 Survey limitations
Emphasis is placed on surveying listed threatened ecological communities, populations and/or
species that are considered likely to occur within the survey area. With respect to opportunistic
observations, the possibility exists that certain species may not have been detected during field
investigations due to:
• seasonal inactivity during field survey;
• species present within microhabitats not surveyed;
• cryptic species able to avoid detection;
• transient wide-ranging species not present during survey period;
• absence of reproductive material for flora identification;
The lack of observational data on some species should therefore not be taken as necessarily
indicating that a species is absent from the site. The repetition of the survey in different seasons
and years is recommended to minimise the effect of this limitation on the survey results.
The precautionary principle was applied in estimating the likelihood of Commonwealth and State
listed species based on habitats identified within the subject site.
With respect to sampling for Swamp Crayfish in the ephemeral ponds that occurred throughout
the Melaleuca wetland / Gahnia sedgeland, it was difficult to make multiple sweeps through the
substrate in areas of dense emergent vegetation. Swamp Crayfish are often difficult to detect as
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 14
Page 15
Native Foresters
they burrow into the substrate in coastal wallum swamps and shallow drainage channels.The
water near the stormwater outlet had a milky appearance further hindering visual detection of
surface activity of Swamp Crayfish.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Desktop review
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation Management map
The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) presents the Regulated Vegetation
Management Mapping (RVMM) as gazetted under the Vegetation Management Act (1999)
(VMA). Analysis of RVMM shows that the survey area does not contain mapped Regulated
Vegetation.
3.1.2 Regional Ecosystem mapping
DNRM presents a Vegetation Management Supporting map which shows the location of Regional
Ecosystems (RE) as gazetted under the VMA (1999). Analysis of this map shows that the
vegetation in the Carramar site is considered non-remnant.
3.1.3 Essential Habitat designation
Essential Habitat is a vegetation ecotype that is considered by DES to form potential habitat for a
species that is listed as Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare or Near Threatened under Schedules 2-5
of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation (2006). Essential Habitat mapping is provided in
conjunction with Regulated Vegetation Management mapping (DNRM 2016) as gazetted under
the VMA (1999). Vegetation at Carramar s not designated Essential Habitat.
3.1.4 WildNET search
DES has compiled a database of wildlife sightings and listings for all flora and fauna species within
a designated area. A database search was conducted for all listed species that have been
identified within one kilometre of the survey area. Three fauna species were listed on WildNET
as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Listed species identified by desktop research within 1.1 km of survey area
NCA EPBC
Scientific Name Common Name Source
Status status
Crinia tinnula Wallum froglet V - WildNET
Litoria freycineti Wallum rocketfrog V - WildNET
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala (SEQ bioregion) V V WildNET
3.1.5 EPBC Protected Matters
A report was generated using the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool. It noted that there is
potential for 36 Threatened Species and 17 Migratory Species to occur within one kilometre of
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 15
Page 16
Native Foresters the survey area, including the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), both listed as Vulnerable. 3.1.6 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map The Protected Plants Survey Trigger Map is a tool provided by DES in order to identify areas that may contain EVNT plant species. The trigger map is used to determine when a flora survey needs to meet the requirements of the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (NCA, 1992). Figure 3 shows that the site lies within a Protected Plants high risk area and as such, is subject to the provisions of the guidelines. 3.1.7 Koala legislation A search of the South East Queensland SPRP Koala Mapping found that the survey area does not lie within a Koala Assessable Development Area (KDA) and contains vegetation mapped as “Medium value rehabilitation” to the east and “Low value rehabilitation” to the west. 3.1.8 Koala tracker Koala tracker is a crowd sourced database of Koala sightings. The Koala tracker map shows a small number of Koala sighting records (both live and dead) along the Cooroy Noosa Road east and west of the Carramar site, and a further 20 sightings in the surrounding one kilometre radius. Some of these records are likely to be multiple sightings of the one individual however the distribution of sightings suggests that Koalas potentially traverse the parks within the Noosa Parklands area, including Lomandra Park, and the Cooroy Noosa Road. In addition, between October 2016 and February 2017, four individuals were sighted in Heritage Park and the Noosa Golf Club (Joan Heavey, pers.comm). Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 16
Page 17
Native Foresters FIGURE 3: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 17
Page 18
Native Foresters
3.2 Flora assessment
3.2.1 Vegetation at Carramar Extension
The vegetation in the south western section adjacent to the Carramar carpark and reception
building consists of an open area of mowed parkland with scattered trees including Eumundi
quandong (Elaeocarpus eumundi), Paperbark tea tree (Melelauca quinquenervia), Waterhousea
(Syzygium floribunda) and Black she oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) (Figure 4). Landscaped garden
beds and shade structures within the parkland contain a combination of native, ornamental and
exotic species including Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Gardenia (Gardenia sp),
Pongamia (Milletia pinnata), Jasmine (Jasminum officinale), Bromeliads (Neoregelia sp), Croton
(Codiaemum variegatum), Hibiscus (Hibiscus sp) and Blue evolvulus (Evolvulus pilosus).
FIGURE 4: Scattered trees and parkland at Carramar entrance
The central and eastern parts of the proposed works footprint and bushfire buffer management
area are densely vegetated and consist of natural areas of regrowth Melaleuca wetland and
remnant Palustrine wetland with scattered emergent Eucalypts and Corymbias. The canopy is
semi-closed with Paperbark tea trees (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Small-leaved paperbark
(Melaleuca sieberi), Cheese tree (Glochidion ferdinandi) and emergent Swamp mahogany
(Eucalyptus robusta), Pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia) and White mahogany (Eucalyptus
acmenoides). Some of the Eucalypt emergents are of significant size, up to 15-20 metres in height
and diameter at breast height (dbh) up to 500 millimetres. Species composition in the understorey
is predominantly native, with sedges and ferns e.g. Tall saw sedge (Gahnia clarkei), Bungwall
(Blechnum indicum), Matamat (Rhyncospora corymbosa) and Smart weed (Persicaria attenuata)
indicative of seasonal inundation as shown in Figure 5. Non-native species are encroaching along
the disturbed edges, including Restricted Invasive Plants Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola
trilobata), Groundsel (Baccharis halmifolia) and Lantana (Lantana camara), as well as a range of
environmental weeds e.g. Sword fern (Nephrolepsis cordata), Common wild petunia
(Stephanophysum longifolium) and Cut leaf philodendron (Philodendron bipinnatifidum).
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 18
Page 19
Native Foresters
FIGURE 5: Melaleuca wetland with sedge and fern understorey
In the upper, northern section the Melaleuca wetland transitions to a Melaleuca woodland (wallum
woodland) with a Melaleuca and Eucalypt canopy over a lower and mid strata of Mat rush
(Lomandra longifolia and L. multiflora), Weeping baeckea (Baeckea frutescens) and Hickory
wattle (Acacia penninervis) as shown in Figure 6. Rainforest/wet sclerophyll elements in the
northern section of the woodland include Silver sycamore (Cryptocarya glaucescens), Lilly pilly
(Syzygium sp), Canary beech (Polyalthia nitidissima) and Native tamarind (Diploglottis australis).
Non-native species are present in the canopy and understorey on the northern edge which adjoins
a number of private residential allotments.
FIGURE 6: Melaleuca woodland with Lomandra understorey
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 19
Page 20
Native Foresters
The northern and western edge of the natural area adjoining the Carramar buildings and footpaths
have been subject to modification and disturbance including dumping of garden waste, nutrient
runoff and weed encroachment from the surrounding residential and landscaped areas, with 50%
native, 50% non-native species in the mid and lower strata. In contrast, the eastern edge of the
survey area is relatively intact retaining a high degree of floristic diversity and integrity across all
strata, with very few weed species encroaching into the wet sedgeland.
The narrow strip of vegetation east of the Carramar carpark and along the southern property
boundary exhibits the characteristic structure and canopy composition of the Endangered
remnant vegetation community RE 12.5.6c (Eucalyptus pilularis +/- E. siderophloia, E. propinqua,
Corymbia intermedia, E. microcorys, E. acmenoides, E. tereticornis, E. biturbinata, Lophostemon
confertus on remnant Tertiary surfaces) with Least Concern RE 12.3.5 (Melaleuca quinquenervia
open forest on coastal alluvium) in the lower-lying wet areas and drainage line.
Vegetation communities present in the proposed expansion area and bushfire management area
are depicted in Figure 8. It should be noted that wet sclerophyll has been shown to be a moving
ecotone between vine forest and moist/dry sclerophyll and the boundaries indicated in Figure 8
are indicative only.
During the flora survey, 70 native species and 37 introduced species were recorded. Refer to
Appendix E for a list of flora species found on site. No EVNT flora species were recorded at the
Carramar site.
3.2.2 Vegetation in 100 metre buffer
The 100 metre buffer zone around the proposed Carramar extension traverses regrowth and
remnant Palustrine wetland (RE 12.3.5) and a large dam to the east; the Carramar Noosa Care
gardens and buildings to the west; urban residential areas to the north, and Tewantin National
Park to the south across the Cooroy Noosa Road (Figure 7). No EVNT species were recorded
during the timed meander survey in the site’s 100 metre buffer as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: Results of timed meander survey
Survey 1: RE 12.3.5
Starting point GPS coordinates: -26.398035oS, 153.012745oE
Target species: Pararistolochia praevenosa, Schoenus scabripes, Phaius australis
Time Species recorded
12.30 pm
Nil
1.00 pm
Survey 2: RE 12.5.6
Starting point GPS coordinates: -26.399496oS, 153.011618oE
Target species: Pararistolochia praevenosa
Time Species recorded
1.10pm
Nil
2.00pm
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 20
Page 21
Native Foresters
FIGURE 7: Closed sedgeland and dam within 100 metre buffer
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 21
Page 22
Native Foresters FIGURE 8: Vegetation Communities at Carramar Noosa Care Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 22
Page 23
Native Foresters 3.3 Fauna assessment The vegetation and physical habitat features within the survey area support a diverse assemblage of native fauna including, but not limited to, two mammal species, twenty bird species, five species of reptiles, four amphibian species and one fish. It also supports a small population of Swamp Crayfish, a conservation significant aquatic invertebrate. The Vulnerable-listed Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) was not observed during the survey periods, however primary and secondary Koala food trees (e.g. Eucalyptus robusta) are present and the species is known to occur within the surrounding one kilometre area (Koala tracker 2017, WildNET 2017). It is considered possible that dispersing Koalas may pass through the area on occasion, but the dense, near impenetrable understorey and wet heathland at the Carramar site does not constitute core habitat for the species. Ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) were observed on the southern edge of the survey area in the mature Eucalypt canopy and it is likely that they exploit abundant nearby weed and fruit trees for food resources. Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) have been observed during previous surveys of the area feeding on Pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia) and Paperbark tea tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia). This species is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Numerous birds were observed foraging in the survey area, particularly in the north-eastern section where the earth was drier and the vegetation included a diversity of environmental weeds and native rainforest elements. Small, insectivorous birds e.g. Brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla) and White-browed scrubwren (Sericornis frontalis) foraged in the thick undergrowth, while Rufous whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris) and Golden whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis) occupied the mid-strata. In the swampier areas, the canopy was dominated by large, aggressive, nectarivorous species e.g. Rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus), Noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus) and Noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala). Garden skinks (Lampropholis delicata) were abundant in the thick undergrowth and under piles of dumped palm fronds and garden waste. Bar sided skink (Concinnia tenuis) was observed among the coarse woody debris and leaf litter near the carpark area. An additional three native reptile species and one introduced species were recorded during the survey. Eastern sedge frog (Litoria fallax), Graceful tree frog (Litoria gracilenta) and a large population of Beeping froglet (Crinia parinsignifera) were detected calling throughout the proposed extent of works, from vegetation and ponds in both the forested areas and the mown areas near the bustop/shelter. Whilst additional species may opportunistically use the site, no EVNT-listed amphibians were detected during multiple surveys over two survey periods (May 2017 and March 2018 following rainfall events for both surveys). There are a small number of records (2) of Wallum froglets and Wallum rocketfrog within one kilometre (WildNET, 2017). A small population of Endangered Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) (as listed in NC Act) was observed in the Melaleuca wetland, when 37 mm of rain prior to the May 2017 survey and 47 mm of rain prior to the March 2018 survey, resulted in temporal inundation of the area between the carpark and eastern site boundary. The location of Swamp crayfish is shown in Figure 9. Under Section 332 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006: A person must not, without a reasonable excuse, tamper with an animal breeding place that is being used by a protected animal to incubate or rear the animal’s offspring. Further information on Swamp Crayfish and their habitat is provided in Section 4.6. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 23
Page 24
Native Foresters
A list of fauna present in the survey area is provided in Table 3. Seasonal variation in fauna
populations may occur as a result of species dispersal and recruitment following localised rainfall
and/or flooding. Extra species found in March 2018 are shown by adding (2018).
TABLE 3: Fauna identified on site
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
MAMMALS
Pseudocheirus peregrinus Ringtail possum
Pteropus poliocephalusV Grey-headed flying fox
BIRDS
Acanthiza pusilla Brown thornbill
Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested cockatoo
Corvus orru Torresian crow
Cracticus nigrogularis Pied butcherbird
Entomyzon cyanotis Blue-faced honeyeater
Eopsaltria australis Eastern yellow robin
Haliastur sphenurus Whistling kite
Malurus assimilis Variegated fairy-wren
Manorina melanocephala Noisy miner
Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's honeyeater
Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet honeyeater
Pachycephala pectoralis Golden whistler
Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous whistler
Philemon corniculatus Noisy friarbird
Platycercus adscitus Pale-headed rosella
Rhipidura fuliginosa Grey fantail
Sericornis frontalis White-browed scrubwren
Strepera graculina Pied currawong
* Streptopelia chinensis Spotted dove
Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-breasted lorikeet
Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow lorikeet
AMPHIBIANS
Crinia parinsignifera (2018) Beeping froglet
Litoria fallax Eastern sedge frog
Litoria gracilenta (2018) Graceful tree frog
* Rhinella marina Cane toad
REPTILES
Concinnia tenuis Barsided skink
Cryptoblepharus pulcher Elegant snake eyed skink
*Hemidactylus frenatus Asian house gecko
Lampropholis amicula Friendly sun skink
Lampropholis delicata Garden skink
Morelia spilota McDowelli Carpet python
FISH
Hypseleotris compressa (2018) Empire gudgeon
INVERTEBRATES
Tenuibranchiurus glypticusE Swamp yabby
V E
Notes: * Denotes a pest species Denotes a Vulnerable species Denotes an Endangered species
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 24
Page 25
Native Foresters FIGURE 9: Location of Endangered Swamp Crayfish and Habitat Model __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 25
Page 26
Native Foresters 3.4 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality The results of the fauna habitat assessment are provided in Table 4. The fauna habitat assessment is important in determining species that may be in the area but whose presence was not able to be detected. The vegetation in the survey area possesses good habitat values for native fauna, although the habitat is narrow in extent and surrounded by urban residential areas. There is potential for species dispersal and recruitment along the drainage lines and the narrow vegetation corridor that traverses Lomandra Park and Heritage Park. This vegetation corridor is locally significant as it connects Harry Springs Conservation Park to the north across Golf Course Drive with Tewantin National Park to the south across the Cooroy Noosa Road. The mature Eucalypt trees in the survey area are considered “habitat trees” as they are of significant size (up to 500 millimetres dbh). These trees provide roosting, perching and foraging resources as well as breeding habitat for a number of arboreal mammal, reptile and avian fauna species and should be retained wherever possible. Although a number of preferred primary and secondary Koala food trees are present, given the narrow extent of the vegetation on site and the dense near-impenetrable understorey, the area is considered to provide suboptimal Koala habitat. Koalas may potentially traverse the survey area or use it as a dry season refugia as they disperse from high quality habitat in Harry Springs Conservation Park to the north and Tewantin National Park to the south and west. There are a significant number of Koala sightings (live and dead) in the surrounding one kilometre area. One disused stick nest and an excavated hole in an arboreal termite nest that would once have been used by a Laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) or one of the Forest kingfisher species were observed in the canopy (Figure 10, Tree No 245, Detailed Survey and Contour Plan). No significant hollows were observed in any of the larger trunks or limbs. The trees provide abundant food for honeyeaters and other nectarivorous species, while some of the rainforest trees and shrubs on site could provide food for frugivorous bird and mammals, including bats. The weed-dominated dense understorey provides cover and nesting habitat for small birds such as Variegated fairy-wren (Malurus assimilis) and Brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla), and also provides breeding and foraging opportunities for small mammals and reptiles. Around the drainage lines and stormwater outlets in the central and southern parts of the site, the ground was saturated and surface water accumulations were noted beneath the dense understorey (Figure 11). Following heavy rainfall in autumn 2017 and 2018, these areas became inundated, giving rise to ephemeral ponds, although the inundation was of short duration. Such habitats may provide breeding habitat for EVNT listed frog species during periods of prolonged inundation, however no individuals were detected during targeted species surveys conducted in optimal survey conditions. The presence of a large population of Beeping Froglet (Crinia parinsignifera) and Eastern Sedge Frog (Litoria fallax) as well as native fish species e.g. Empire gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa) may exclude Wallum Froglets and/or detract from the area’s suitability for the species. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 26
Page 27
Native Foresters
FIGURE 10: Arboreal termite mound used for nesting by kookaburras or kingfishers
FIGURE 11: Stormwater outlets and drainage lines provide breeding habitat for amphibians
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 27
Page 28
Native Foresters
Within the wet sedgeland just east of the carpark, showers and heavy rainfall over the survey
periods created ephemeral ponds (Figure 12) that supported surface activity of the Endangered
Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus). Further information on habitat use and communal
burrows created by the species is provided in Section 4.6.
Additional habitat structures on site were minimal. A small number of fallen logs, palm fronds and
piles of dumped garden waste provide some cover and habitat for small reptiles and litter foraging
invertebrates (Figure 13).
Proximity of the survey area to maintained roads, stormwater infrastructure and residential
housing is associated with undesirable recruitment of non-native flora and ornamental species.
The survey area would benefit from ongoing weed management. Measures to minimise weed
spread during works, particularly Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata), Groundsel (Baccharis
halmifolia) and exotic creepers and succulents, should be followed.
TABLE 4: Rating of habitat features within the proposed Carramar Extension
Habitat features
Rating
Presence of large trees Moderate
Presence of arboreal hollows Absent
Canopy cover Semi-closed
Mid strata cover Semi-closed
Dense, but weed dominated on
Understorey cover western and northern edge
Presence of fallen timber, rocks etc. Poor
Presence of detrital layer Moderate
Ephemeral ponding Present
Presence of permanent water Absent
Moderate, across a main road and
Site connectivity and potential for recruitment of flora and fauna urban residential area
Table 5 provides an analysis of the potential presence of threatened species as listed in Wildlife
Online and the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool or based on the field habitat suitability
assessment that may occur within the area (i.e. one kilometre radius) and comments on the
likelihood of those species occurring in or around the Carramar site.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 28
Page 29
Native Foresters
FIGURE 12: Ephemeral ponds providing habitat for Endangered Swamp crayfish
FIGURE 13: Piles of dumped garden waste provide refuge and basking sites for reptiles
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 29
Page 30
Native Foresters
TABLE 5: Breeding habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Comments Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Habitat generalist that breeds in Potential habitat at stormwater outlet
Tusked shallow, water-holding depressions in and depressions, but no individuals
Adelotus brevis V - Possible wet sclerophyll forest, rainforest and detected
frog
disturbed areas.
Habitat specialist requires ephemeral, Potential habitat (i.e. ephemeral
acidic, wallum wetland but tolerant of ponding) present at stormwater outlet
disturbance. and depressions and through
Crinia tinnula Wallum V - Possible Melaleuca wetland, but no individuals
froglet detected. Large populations of
Beeping froglet and gudgeon may
occlude the presence of Wallum
froglet.
Habitat specialist requires ephemeral, Potential habitat (i.e. ephemeral
Wallum acidic, wallum wetland but tolerant of ponding) present at stormwater outlet
Litoria freycineti V - Possible
rocketfrog disturbance. depressions and throughout Melaleuca
wetland, but no individuals detected.
Primary and secondary koala food Absent
Phascolarctos trees present. Koalas may traverse the
Koala V V Possible area as they disperse from adjacent
cinereus
good quality habitat in Tewantin
National Park and Harry Springs Park.
Pteropus Grey – Forms large camps and roosting Absent – no known breeding colony or
poliocephalus headed colonies, usually near water. maternity roost present.
flying fox Known - Disperses widely to forage in
V V rainforest, melaleuca and mangrove
foraging
woodland, swamps and disturbed
areas with suitable Eucalypt,
Corymbia and Melaleuca trees.
Tenuibranchiurus Swamp Inhabits coastal wallum swamps and Present east of Carramar carpark as
glypticus crayfish E - Known is found among sedges rather than shown in Figure 8 and Appendix B
open water.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 30
Page 31
Native Foresters 4.0 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES 4.1 Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) The largest of the flying-foxes, the Grey headed flying fox, ranges from Townsville in the tropical north, south along the east coast, and south to Victoria. The species roosts communally in densely vegetated gullies, and feeds on rainforest fruits and blossoms from eucalypts, angophoras, banksias and tea-trees (Tideman 1995). Paperbark tea tree woodlands are an important winter food source. As with other species of flying foxes, the species is threatened by destruction of roosting areas and the clearing and development of feeding habitat which has led to its listing as a Vulnerable species under the EPBC Act. During the mating season (March-April), Grey headed flying foxes form large camps. When food is scarce flying-foxes can disperse from these camps and may hang individually or in small groups near feeding trees. Campsites may be permanently or seasonally occupied, depending on availability of flowering trees nearby. Grey-headed flying-foxes can fly up to 50 kilometres to find food (fruit and nectar). Females give birth to a single pup in October-November, which is carried by the mother for one month and remains dependent on the mother for up to four months. Grey-headed flying foxes have been identified during the surveys feeding in flowering Corymbias and Melaleucas adjacent to and within the Carramar site. Large colonies are known to roost in Noosaville (Wallace Park, near Weyba Road and on Goat Island). 4.2 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) The Koala is an arboreal folivore, restricted in its distribution to the eucalypt forests and woodlands of eastern Australia. The species is listed as Vulnerable under State and Federal legislation. Preferred food trees in the Noosa region include Blue gum (E. tereticornis), Grey gum (E. propinqua), Tallowwood (E. microcorys), Swamp mahogany (E. robusta) and Flooded Gum (E. grandis). Individuals have distinct home ranges which vary according to population density and the abundance of mature food trees (Martin and Handasyde 1995). Whilst a significant number of primary and secondary food tree species are present in the survey area, the habitat quality for Koalas is considered sub-optimal by virtue of its dense, near impenetrable sedgeland understorey; its narrow extent and proximity to a major road. There was no evidence of Koalas or Koala activity in the survey area, however Queensland Governmnet’s WildNET database holds six records within one kilometre of the survey area and there are a number of anecdotal sightings recorded on Koala Tracker and by the Heritage Park Bushland Care Group (Joan Heavey, pers.comm.) within one kilometre of the survey area. The occurrence of recent Koala records (live and dead) and the location of the survey area in the middle of a matrix of known, high quality Koala habitat areas indicates that the Carramar site may provide dry season refugia and/or movement corridor that Koala populations may potentially exploit in future in an increasingly fragmented landscape. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 31
Page 32
Native Foresters 4.3 Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) The Tusked frog owes its name to the large paired projections or tusks that males possess in the lower jaw. The Tusked frog is a monotypic genus, being the only species in the genus Adelotus. It is the only species in Australia where the males are larger than the females. Although common in parts of its range, declines and possible extinctions in some areas prompted its listing as Vulnerable under the NC Act 1992. Tusked frogs are habitat generalists that can be found under logs, stones or leaf litter near puddles, creeks and ponds. The Tusked frog has a mottled dark brown back that is covered with small warts. There is usually a butterfly-shaped marking between the eyes and the limbs are banded. Bright red patches are located in the groin area and on the back of the legs. Males construct nests in concealed sites under leaf litter, vegetation or logs in shallow water at the edge of ponds or stream pools (Anstis, 2002). The territory will encompass an area of water suitable for the female to lay her eggs on in a foamy nest on the surface (Frogs Australia, 2017). No Tusked frogs were identified during the fauna surveys. Tusked frogs have been recorded in the surrounding area e.g. Heritage Park (Joan Heavey, pers.comm.) and Daintree Estate (Native Foresters, 2014). As such it is considered possible that the species may opportunistically use drainage lines, stormwater outlets, ephemeral ponds and wetland areas present throughout the site for breeding. 4.4 Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) The Wallum froglet is a small frog (up to 20 mm in length) whose dorsal side is highly variable in colour (grey, beige, red-brown) and texture (smooth or irregular). The ventral side is granular, with a fine median line of white dots on the throat that may continue across the belly. Walllum froglet is listed as Vulnerable under the NC Act. Wallum froglets require ephemeral and semi-permanent acidic swamps and creeks that seasonally flood for breeding. They also inhabit adjacent heathlands and Melaleuca woodlands. The species is considered tolerant of disturbance, and is known to call from depressions in grassy areas adjacent to drains after prolonged rainfall. Breeding usually occurs in winter, although has been recorded in all seasons after rain (Meyer et al. 2006). Tadpoles may take two to six months to develop into frogs. Males may call throughout the year and at any time of day, peaking following rain. Habitat modification, predation by Cane toads and Mosquito fish; and changes in hydrology and pH pose significant threats to this species. Wallum froglets were not identified within the survey area despite targeted survey effort in optimal conditions in autumn 2017 and 2018. There are two WildNET records of Wallum froglets within a one kilometre radius. The species is not currently using the ponded water and Melaleuca wetland areas near the carpark and stormwater outlets/ culverts for breeding. The 2018 surveys identified a large population of Beeping Froglet (Crinia parinsignifera) and Eastern Sedge Frog (Litoria fallax) as well as native fish species e.g. Empire gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa) which may exclude Wallum Froglets and/or detract from the area’s suitability for the species. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 32
Page 33
Native Foresters
4.5 Wallum rocket frog (Litoria freycineti)
The Wallum Rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti) is one of several ’acid frogs’ adapted to breeding in
acidic coastal waters. It is commonly seen in the vicinity of coastal wallum swamps which typically
have low nutrient soils and vegetation consisting of heath, sedgeland, Melaleuca swamp or
Banksia woodland. It is mostly a nocturnal species, and is a spring and summer breeder. Wallum
rocket frogs are listed as Vulnerable under the NC Act.
The Wallum Rocket Frog grows to about 45 millimetres in length. Colour is grey-brown to dark
brown on its back with dark stripes, it has a dark triangular area on the top of snout and a dark
streak runs from its nostril through the eye and continues down its side. The belly is whitish and
granular and the back of thighs is light brown with cream spots. Males call from the ground beside
water, with calling activity consistent with breeding behaviour for the species.
Wallum rocketfrogs were not identified within the survey area. There are two WildNET records of
Wallum rocketfrogs in a one kilometre radius of the Carramar site. The ponded water surrounded
by Melaleuca woodland near the carpark, Melaleuca wetland and stormwater outlets on site are
not currently being used by the species for breeding.
4.6. Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus)
Swamp crayfish, listed as Endangered under the NC Act, is Australia’s smallest crayfish that
grows up to 25 millimetres (Figure 14). It can be distinguished from other species of crayfish in
south east Queensland by its narrow thorax and the vertical alignment of the fingers of the claws.
FIGURE 14: Endangered Swamp crayfish found east of Carramar Noosa carpark
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 33
Page 34
Native Foresters Its distribution is highly restricted, occurring only from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast. Throughout its range, the Swamp Crayfish is associated mainly with coastal paperbark (Melaleuca) swamps, including areas of remnant and regrowth Melaleuca quinquenervia woodland (E. Meyer, pers. comm.). Records of this species from drainage lines and artificial ponds, within and adjacent disturbed Melaleuca woodland, suggest some resilience to disturbance (e.g., see Dawkins, 2015). For example, the species has been encountered in areas subject to periodic slashing and flail mowing, as well as previously cleared areas (Ed Meyer, pers.comm.; Tim Howell, pers.comm.). Genetic studies indicate significant genetic structuring amongst populations of the Swamp Crayfish, with animals from divergent clades and subclades representing up to two genera and seven species (Dawkins et al., 2010; 2017). Nevertheless, pending future taxonomic revision, specimens of Tenuibranchiurus from south-east Queensland (including the project area) are currently referrable to as T. glypticus. Knowledge of the Swamp Crayfish’s reproductive biology is limited; however, it is known to inhabit burrows up to 1.5 metres deep and is sometimes found sharing burrows with other crayfish species e.g. Cherax spp (Dawkins, 2015). It is likely that within these burrows, Swamp Crayfish reproduce, overwinter, and/or avoid desiccation. Studies by Harding and Williams (2003), suggest the species prefer areas of denser sedge cover, with sedges providing protection from potential predators. At night, however, Swamp Crayfish may be readily seen foraging in areas of shallow open water with little or no vegetation cover (E. Meyer, pers. comm.). In addition to this, Swamp Crayfish have also been recorded in waterbodies with little or no sedge cover (E. Meyer, pers. comm.). The importance of sedge cover for this species is therefore unclear. Available data suggest breeding occurs during late autumn/early winter with egg-bearing animals and young-of-year crayfish having been recorded in May-July (Dawkins, 2015; E. Meyer, pers. comm.). Observations on the Gold Coast and Bribie Island, however, suggest breeding may occur at other times of year as well (Dawkins, 2015). Though the diet of Swamp Crayfish has not been documented, it is likely that the species feeds on decaying roots and leaf litter (as is the case with most freshwater crayfish species). What, if any, specific requirements this species has in terms of breeding habitat is unclear. Differentiating between areas of breeding and non-breeding habitat is therefore impractical and, for the purposes of this assessment, areas of occupied habitat are regarded as breeding places. Swamp crayfish and their breeding habitat are protected under s88 of the NC Act and s332 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. If clearing of “breeding habitat” is to occur, an appropriate Species Management Program (SMP) is required and measures to minimise impacts to the species and their breeding habitat must be pursued as these are vital for ensuring long term species viability. Habitat loss, pollution and climate change are considered significant threats to the survival of this species. There is very little suitable habitat remaining within its range, as most has been cleared. A small population of Swamp crayfish were identified in the ephemeral ponds in the Melaleuca wetland / sedgeland near the stormwater outlets east of the Carramar carpark as shown in Figure 9 and Appendix B. Implementation of an DES-approved Species Management Plan will be required under Section 332 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 before works can proceed unless measures are taken to ensure indirect impacts to the breeding habitat for Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 34
Page 35
Native Foresters
Endangered-listed Swamp crayfish are avoided. Appropriate avoidance and impact mitigation
measures include:
▪ Retention of vegetation within areas of occupied habitat;
▪ Careful consideration of site hydrology to avoid changes to Melaleuca wetland;
▪ Treatment of stormwater through bioretention basins or other similar treatment devices;
▪ Careful management of cleaning water, disinfectants, detergents and other pollutants on
site and / or containment of contaminated runoff.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 35
Page 36
Native Foresters
5.0 SUMMARY
▪ The vegetation within the Carramar site is mapped as non-remnant under the Vegetation
Management Act 1999.
▪ The vegetation is not designated Essential habitat for Endangered, Vulnerable or Near
threatened fauna species.
▪ The subject site lies within a Protected Plants high risk area and within a Noosa Council
mapped Biodiversity Overlay area.
▪ The vegetation on site was found to consist partly of
i) A Melaleuca wetland, with native sedge and fern understorey (approx 4,530m2);
ii) A Melaleuca woodland with Lomandra and heath understorey and some rainforest /
wet sclerophyll elements (approx. 1,822 m2);
iii) A grassy parkland with landscape trees and introduced species (approx. 2,780m2);
and
iv) Wet Eucalypt forest (approx. 340m2).
▪ The vegetation in the Melaleuca wetland area exhibits the characteristic structure and
composition of Regional Ecosystem 12.3.5 – Palustrine wetland, with tall Eucalypt emergents
(Eucalyptus robusta and Corymbia intermedia) of significant height (20 metres) and girth (500
millimetres dbh) growing over a sub-canopy of Paperbark tea tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia),
Black she oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) and dense thickets of Tall saw sedge (Gahnia clarkei),
Bungwall (Blechnum indicum) and Harsh ground fern (Hypolepsis muelleri).
▪ Species composition is approximately 50% native, 50% introduced on the western edge, and
90% native, 10% introduced on the eastern edge with a moderate diversity of species
recorded.
▪ No EVNT flora species were detected within the survey area or 100 metre buffer.
▪ The proposed development will result in loss of approximately 75 % of the native vegetation
on site, with 25% retained as a corridor to the adjacent Lomandra Park. This involves the
clearing of approximately 0.75 hectares of vegetation that lies in a designated Environmental
Protection Area on the Noosa Council Biodiversity overlay. The site is not mapped as
Riparian Buffer Area on the Overlay map.
▪ Two NCA-listed fauna species, Grey headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus - Vulnerable)
and Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus - Endangered) were identified in the survey
area, in addition to a number of Least concern mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians.
▪ Breeding habitat for Endangered Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) occurs in the
ephemeral ponds near the stormwater outlets and Melaleuca wetland / Gahnia sedgeland
east of the carpark. The actual / occupied habitat for Swamp Crayfish covers an area of
approximately 300m2, of which 20 m2 will be cleared as part of the development proposal.
The modeled potential distribution of Swamp crayfish based on hydrology, vegetation and
presence of ephemeral ponding on Lot 2 RP177554 is approximately 2,300m2, of which 50m2
will be cleared for the development and 480m2 will be selectively cleared for the bushfire
buffer.
▪ The proposed rehabilitation plan will involve weed removal in the retained vegetation and
0.75 ha of Lomandra Park to improve the values of this vegetation.
▪ The Melaleuca wetland with sedge understorey may at times be opportunistically used by
EVNT-listed Wallum frogs (e.g. Crinia tinnula and Litoria freycineti), and the ponded water
around the culverts may provide suitable breeding habitat for Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis),
however none of these species were found despite targeted survey effort in optimum
conditions.
▪ The survey area does not lie within a Koala Assessable Development Area and as such is
not subject to the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 and Regulation 2017 (Schedule 10).
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 36
Page 37
Native Foresters
▪ Vulnerable listed Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) are known to occur within one kilometre
and may traverse the site on occasion however the habitat quality for Koalas is considered
sub-optimal by virtue of its dense, near impenetrable sedgeland understorey; its narrow
extent and proximity to a major road.
▪ Two pest fauna species are present, Asian house gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus) and Cane
toad (Rhinella marina).
▪ Six Restricted Invasive Plant species are present, including Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola
trilobata) and Groundsel (Baccharis halmifolia). The General Biosecurity Obligation
designated under the Biosecurity Act 2014 requires everyone to take all reasonable and
practical steps to minimise the risks associated with invasive species.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
To minimise any potential adverse impacts on native species and their breeding habitats within
the survey area, the following recommendations are made:
1. Appropriate measures must be taken to ensure impacts to the breeding habitat of
Endangered Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) and to the potential breeding
habitat of EVNT listed frog species are avoided.
2. If impacts on the identified wetland / sedgeland areas which provide breeding habitat for
these species including indirect impacts (e.g. changes to hydrology, sediment and nutrient
runoff) cannot be avoided, an DES approved Species Management Plan will be required
under the Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006.
3. Areas of occupied Swamp Crayfish habitat should be clearly delineated and left undisturbed.
4. Works adjacent to areas of occupied Swamp Crayfish habitat should be conducted sensitively
to ensure no compaction of potential burrows or changes to hydrology or water quality occur.
Manual clearing methods are recommended. Avoid use of heavy machinery which might
result in compaction of soil within areas of Swamp Crayfish habitat.
5. Works should be conducted when the disturbance zone is dry (i.e. when Swamp Crayfish are
likely to be sheltering in burrows).
6. Avoid the use of herbicides and wetting agents in proximity to areas of surface water.
7. The location of proposed works should be carefully considered to avoid clearing mature
phase native trees that are providing structure and breeding habitat for native fauna.
8. A Fauna Spotter-catcher will be required during vegetation clearing to relocate any native
fauna and habitat structures found.
9. Habitat structures in the form of logs and coarse woody debris should be retained in situ if
possible, or relocated into the surrounding undisturbed areas.
10. It is recommended that works commence prior to the wet season to minimise impacts on
possible amphibian breeding events that would occur after rain, particularly within proximity
to the drainage lines and Melaleuca wetland.
11. Care should be taken to avoid introduction and further spread of undesirable habitat-changing
and exotic flora species during works.
12. Active management of Restricted Invasive Plants (eg: Singapore daisy, Groundsel and Broad
leaf pepper tree) and other environmental weeds should be incorporated into the works
wherever practicable.
13. Recolonisation of the site by native fauna upon the completion of works is dependent upon
the reinstatement of habitat values for these species e.g. coarse woody debris.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 37
Page 38
Native Foresters REFERENCES Ecosure (2016) Noosa Parklands Park Management Plan. Prepared for Noosa Council, September 2016. 64pp. Eyre TJ, Ferguson DJ, Hourigan CL, Smith GC, Mathieson MT, Kelly, AL, Venz MF, Hogan, LD and Rowland, J. (2014). Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Assessment Guidelines for Queensland. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government, Brisbane. Frogs Australia Network 2017. Australian Frogs Database. www.frogsaustralia.net.au Harding, D. and Williamson, I. (2003). A note on the habitat requirements of the swamp crayfish on Bribie Island, southeastern Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 49, 452. Harding, D. and Williamson, I. (2004). The influence of light phase and predators on the behaviour of swamp crayfish. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 49, 704. Haslam, S. and Hauser, J. (2004) Noosa’s Native Plants. Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. Heavey, J. and MacDonald, S. (2013) Weeds of The Sunshine Coast. Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. Leiper, G., Glazebrook, J., Cox, D. and Rathie, K. (2009) Mangroves to Mountains. A Field Guide to the Plants of South East Queensland. Revised Edition. Society for Growing Australian Plants – QLD Region. Martin, R.W. and Handsyde K.A. 1995, ‘Koala Phascolarctos cinereus ’, in The Mammals of Australia, ed R. Strahan, Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney. Meyer, E., Hero, J-M., Shoo, L. and Lewis, B. (2006). National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. Native Foresters (2014) Flora and Fauna Survey - Daintree Estate, Tewantin. Flood Mitigation Works. Report prepared for Noosa Council. 43pp. Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Thompson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. (2012) Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland, Version 3.2, Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015) Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Nature Conservation Act 1992. Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2014). State Government Supported Community Infrastructure Koala Conservation Policy. Prepared by the Koala Conservation Unit. July 2014. Queensland Government (2006). Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 38
Page 39
Native Foresters Queensland Herbarium (2016) Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD). Version 10.0 (December 2016) (DSITI: Brisbane). Rowland, J. 2013. Wallum rocketfrog, Litoria freycineti. Targeted species survey guidelines. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane. Rowland, J. 2012. Wallum froglet, Crinia tinnula. Targeted species survey guidelines. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane Tideman, C.R. 1995, ‘Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus’, in The Mammals of Australia, ed R. Strahan, Australian Museum and Reed Books, Sydney. Vanderduys, E (2012), Field Guide to the Frogs of Queensland, CSIRO Publishing. Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 39
Page 40
Native Foresters APPENDIX A: CARRAMAR EXTENSION MODEL Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 40
Page 41
Native Foresters Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 41 [OCR of page images] Native Foresters ( Callaghan & Toth : eal & CLEARING AMEAS, (5282) BRE eo ves (702002) Mestre meer ceecre cazsnne ater (2304n2) Carramar Extension — Fauna and Flora Assessment — Revision 2 4
Page 42
Native Foresters APPENDIX B: SITE PLAN – CARRAMAR NOOSA EXPANSION Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 42
Page 43
Native Foresters Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 43 [OCR of page images] Native Foresters Carramar Extension — Fauna and Flora Assessment — Revision 2 43
Page 44
Native Foresters
APPENDIX C: Certification of Suitably Qualified Person for
Flora Survey
Native Foresters flora surveys are undertaken by competent and trained personnel led by Dave Burrows
and Bill Flenady.
Dave has over 20 years’ experience in conducting botanical surveys, including identification of EVNT
species and extensive knowledge of local ecosystems in the Gympie, Noosa and Sunshine Coast regions.
Dave has a Diploma in Horticulture, and Conservation and Land Management. Examples of botanical
surveys include:
▪ Flora and Fauna Assessment – Cooney Road, Bli Bli – Nambour Landfill Expansion (2015-2017)
▪ Flora and Fauna Assessment – Park Road, Noosa Boardwalk (2015)
▪ Flora and Fauna Assessment – Daintree Estate, Tewantin (2014)
Dave has also authored the following publications:
▪ “Vegetation of Noosa Shire, edition 2” – 2003, Noosa Shire Council planning scheme study
▪ Various Bushland Management Plans for Noosa Council conservation Reserves.
▪ “Seed production and litterfall in some Eucalyptus communities in Central Queensland” Australian
Journal of Botany, Vol 40, 1992.
▪ “Regeneration and survival of Desmanthus virgatus 78382 in grazed and ungrazed pastures”.
Tropical Grasslands. Vol 27, 1993.
▪ “Performance and palatability of some Australian Trees and Shrubs”. Nitrogen fixing tree research
reports, 1991.
Bill has over 40 years experience in field based botany and is a rainforest specialist, having worked as
senior ranger, Binaburra in Lamington National Park for over 10 years.
Vanessa Moscato (BSc) also undertakes flora surveys as part of the Native Foresters flora survey team.
Vanessa has been undertaking flora surveys, including EVNT species surveys for twelve years.
Examples of surveys conducted include:
▪ Flora and Fauna Assessment - Petrie Creek Bank Stabilisation (2017)
▪ Plot survey of Pararistolochia praevenosa - Nambour Landfill Expansion (2015-2017)
▪ Flora Assessment - Maleny Southern Wetlands (2016)
▪ Flora Assessment - Jimna Bellthorpe Road bridge, West Kilcoy (2016)
▪ Population survey of Symplocos harroldii at Daintree Estate, Tewantin (2014)
The following statement is provided in certification of the suitably qualified person who conducted the flora
survey.
I certify that
(a) I have adhered to all statutory requirements and flora survey guideline requirements, and
(b) the flora survey report is an accurate and full account of the flora survey.
I have previously been approved by EHP under the Nambour Landfill Expansion project – Fauna and
Flora Assessment, prepared for Sunshine Coast Council.
Name: Vanessa Moscato Signature:
Date: 28/06/2018
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 44
Page 45
Native Foresters
APPENDIX D: JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND
EXPERIENCED PERSON FOR FAUNA BREEDING PLACE
SURVEY
Native Foresters fauna surveys and breeding habitat assessments are coordinated and led by
Tony Bright.
Tony Bright is a native fauna and flora specialist with over 40 years’ experience in the field. He
has spent ten years as a guide working in the Fraser Island region and 30 years doing field–based
research in Australia and overseas. Tony is a professional wildlife keeper and a licensed Wildlife
spotter catcher (Fauna rehabilitation permit holder) specialising in reptile, mammal and amphibian
species.
Tony Bright is assisted in the field by Vanessa Moscato and Tim O’Reilly.
Vanessa is an ecological consultant with:
• Ten years experience in conducting surveys for animal breeding places;
• A Science degree; and
• Four years experience as a Fauna Spotter-catcher.
Tim O’Reilly is a native fauna and flora specialist, with a degree in Botany and Environmental
Management, who has spent over 40 years in World Heritage Listed Rainforest observing and
recording native species.
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 45
Page 46
Native Foresters
APPENDIX E: VEGETATION SURVEY RESULTS
Regional Ecosystem Description Non-remnant
Open in maintained area near carpark / semi-closed in
Canopy condition
regrowth and natural, old growth areas
Understory condition Open in maintained areas, Semi-closed in natural areas
Species composition
65:35
Native : Introduced
Native fauna habitat quality Good
Species present:
NATIVE SPECIES
Species Family Common name Abundance
CANOPY
Acacia melanoxylon Mimosaceae Blackwood C
Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana Arecaceae Piccabeen palm O
Corymbia intermedia Myrtaceae Pink bloodwood C
Cupaniopsis anarcadiodes Sapindaceae Tuckeroo O
Eucalyptus acmenoides Myrtaceae White mahogany O
Eucalyptus robusta Myrtaceae Swamp mahogany O
Eucalyptus tereticornis Myrtaceae Forest red gum C
Ficus superba Moraceae Deciduous fig R
Glochidion ferdinandi Euphorbiaceae Cheese tree C
Glochidion sumatranum Euphorbiaceae Umbrella cheese tree O
Guioa semiglauca Sapindaceae Native quince O
Lophostemon confertus Myrtaceae Brush box O
Lophostemon suaveolens Myrtaceae Swamp box O
Melaleuca quinquenervia Myrtaceae Paper barked tea tree C
Small-leaved
Melaleuca sieberi Myrtaceae paperbark C
Melia azedarach Meliaceae White cedar R
Polyalthia nitidissima Annonanceae Canary beech O
Syzygium floribundum Myrtaceae Weeping lilly pilly C
MID-STRATA
Acacia penninervis Mimosaceae Hickory wattle O
Acmena smithii Myrtaceae Narrow-leaf lilly pilly O
Alphitonia excelsa Rhamnaceae Red ash / Soap tree C
Baeckea frutescens Myrtaceae Weeping baeckea O
Cyathea cooperi Cyatheaceae Scaly tree fern R
Cymbidium suave Orchidaceae Scented orchid O
Diploglottis australis Sapindaceae Native tamarind O
Elaeocarpus eumundii Elaeocarpaceae Eumundi quandong O
Elaeocarpus reticulatus Elaeocarpaceae Blueberry ash O
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 46
Page 47
Native Foresters
Species Family Common name Abundance
Hovea acutifolia Fabaceae Hovea C
Livistona australis Arecaceae Cabbage palm O
Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae Macaranga C
Melastoma malabathricum Melastomataceae Blue tongue C
Meliocope elleryana Rutaceae Pink euodia O
Long-leaved mock
Notelaea longifolia Oleaceae C
olive
Oxylobium robustum Fabaceae Oxylobium O
Pilidiostigma rhytispermum Myrtaceae Small-leaf plum myrtle R
Platycerium superbum Polypodiaceae Staghorn R
Sannantha bidwilli Myrtaceae Baeckea C
Wikstroemia indica Thymelaeaceae Tie bush O
Allocasuarina littoralis Casuarinaceae Black sheoak C
Ficus coronata Moraceae Creek sandpaper fig O
Polyscias elegans Araliaceae Celery wood O
Syzygium australe Myrtaceae Brush cherry C
LOWER STRATA
Austromyrtus dulcis Myrtaceae Midyim berry O
Blechnum indicum Blechnaceae Bungwall C
Centella asiatica Apiaceae Pennywort C
Commelina cyanea Commelinaceae Native wandering jew C
Cryptocarya glaucescens Lauraceae Silver sycamore C
Cyperus polystachyos Cyperaceae Bunchy sedge O
Dianella caerulea Hemerocallidaceae Blue flax lily O
Eustrephus latifolius Phileseaceae Wombat berry O
Gahnia clarkei Cyperaceae Creeping sword grass C
Geitenoplesium cymosum Philesiaceae Scrambling lily O
Hibbertia scandens Dilleniaceae Twining guinea flower R
Hypolepsis muelleri Dennstaedtiaceae Harsh ground fern C
Imperata cylindrica Poaceae Blady grass C
Lobelia purpurescens Campanulaceae White root O
Lomandra longifolia Asparagaceae Creek mat rush O
Lomandra multiflora Xanthorrheaceae Club Rush O
Climbing maidenhair
Lygodium microphyllum Shizaeaceae fern C
Melodinus australis Apocynaceae Bellbird vine C
Parsonsia straminea Apocynaceae Monkey rope O
Persicaria sp Polygonaceae A Smartweed C
Piper hederaceum Piperaceae Giant pepper vine O
Pteridium esculentum Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken O
Rhynchospora corymbosa Cyperaceae Matamat C
Smilax australis Smilacaceae Barbwire vine O
Smilax glyciphylla Smilacaceae Native sarsparilla O
Stephania japonica var. discolor Menispermaceae Tape vine O
Zieria minutiflora Rutaceae Small midge bush C
Zieria smithii
Rutaceae Midge bush R
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 47
Page 48
Native Foresters
NON-NATIVE OR NON-LOCAL NATIVE SPECIES
Biosecurity
Act
Species Family Common name Category
Agapanthus sp Liliaceae Agapanthus -
Ardisia crispa Myrsinaceae Smooth coral berry -
Restricted
Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagaceae Ground asparagus fern Invasive
Plant
Restricted
Baccharis halimifolia Asteraceae Groundsel Invasive
Plant
Bidens pillosa Asteraceae Cobblers peg -
Billberrgia / Neoreglia sp Bromeliaceae A Bromeliad -
Restricted
Cinnamomum camphora Lauraceae Camphor laurel Invasive
Plant
Codiaemum variegatum Euphorbiaceae Variegated croton -
Cordyline terminalis Asparagaceae Red cordyline -
Desmodium uncinatum Fabaceae Silver-leaf desmodium -
Dypsis lutescens Arecaceae Golden cane palm -
Evolvus pillosus Convolvulaceae Blue evolvus -
Gardenia sp Rubiaceae A Gardenia -
Hibiscus sp Malvaceae A Hibiscus -
Ipomoea cairica Convolvulaceae Mile a minute -
Jasminum officinale Oleaceae Common jasmin -
Restricted
Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana Invasive
Plant
Milletia pinnata Fabaceae Pongamia -
Monstera deliciosa Araceae Swiss cheese plant -
Murraya paniculata Rutaceae Mock orange -
Neonotonia wightii Fabaceae Glycine -
Nephrolepsis cordifolia Nephrolepidaceae Fishbone fern -
Nephrolepsis obliterata Nephrolepidaceae Sword fern -
Ochna serrulata Ochnaceae Mickey mouse bush -
Ophiopogon sp Asparagaceae Stripey white grass -
Paspalum conjugatum Poaceae Sour paspalum -
Paspalum urvillei Poaceae Vasey grass -
Passiflora edulis Passifloraceae Edible passionfruit -
Passiflora suberosa Passifloraceae Corky passion vine -
Philodendron bipinnatifidum Araceae Cut-leaf philodendron -
Plectranthus verticillatus Lamiaceae Creeping charlie -
Raphiolepsis indica Rosaceae Indian hawthorn -
Schefflera actinophylla Araliaceae Umbrella tree -
Dwarf New Zealand
Schefflera digitata Araliaceae
umbrella tree -
Restricted
Schinus terebinthifolia Anacardiaceae Broad-leaf pepper tree Invasive
Plant
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 48
Page 49
Native Foresters
Biosecurity
Act
Species Family Common name Category
Senna pendula Fabaceae Easter cassia -
Solanum seaforthianum Solanaceae Brazilian nightshade -
Restricted
Sphagneticola trilobata Asteraceae Singapore daisy Invasive
Plant
Stephanophysum longifolium Acanthaceae Common wild petunia -
Syagrus romanzoffiana Arecaceae Cocos palm -
Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 49
Page 50
Native Foresters APPENDIX F: REVISED CONTOUR MAP SHOWING Q100 FLOOD LEVELS Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 50
Page 51
Native Foresters Carramar Extension – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 2 51 [OCR of page images] Native Foresters \e zy ey . 3. => ~ mh : i Se Be % i ae . ‘ 7 > Bre, — 9 te M3 Se & Sh ort | 3 fi Pe | 4 tera t | § a es | a | = a | 5 P | © : nt | - | | i | | ah "i 7 Sone | = i = | | : : | wy ~ t | ea if | i aay aan Noosa Cure Ine Coatine & Detail Survey of Part of = Tra | Net 2am REITTSSA SS = — Orta Bor at — —— Poors of Teweaeetion pedi! = iat eee = Carramar Extension — Fauna and Flora Assessment — Revision 2 51